Case Note Example

Case Note Example Case Note – Coursework Example Insert Valilas v Januzaj Valilas v Januzaj EWCA Civ 436 is a recent English contract law case concerning when a repudiatory breach is legal (Palmer 1). Mr Valilas entered an informal contract with Mr Janujaz under which the latter would use his facility and equipment for dental treatment in exchange for half of his monthly earnings. Mr Janujaz had another agreement with the resident Primary Care Trust (PCT), which paid him beforehand on monthly basis for meeting the threshold of agreed units during that duration (Smithdale 1). He would refund any extra payments to PCT whenever the units were fewer than agreed. Mr Janujaz discovered he could not keep up with the rates of refunds and stopped giving Mr Valilas his dues (Steward and Dixon 1). Mr Valilas responded by terminating the contract, forcing the contract between Mr Janujaz and the PCT to end as well (Woods and Rowan 1). The issue came before the Court of Appeal to determine whether: Mr Janujaz’s stopping of the monthly pay ments constituted a repudiatory breach; and if it was not, whether Mr Valilas was responsible for any damages incurred by Mr Janujaz by ceding his contract with the PCT. As Elliott and Hemming (1) noted, by a ratio of 2:1, the Court ruled that the non-payment did not constitute a repudiatory breach on the following grounds: a) the contract did not specify when the monthly payments were to be made; b) the duty to make timely payments was vague; it did not envisage the problem and did not specify actions that would constitute non-compliance with the terms; c) Mr Janujaz could have completed the repayments, though, at a later date; and Mr Valilas was not at risk of any material loss due to the delayed payment.Elliott, Geraldine and Hemming, Daniel. â€Å"Repudiation: dentists breach does not go to the root of the contract.† International Law Office, 1 Jul. 2014. Web 28 Feb 2015. Palmer, Edwards Wildman. â€Å"The Court of Appeal drills deep into ‘the root of the contra ct’ and finds itself divided on whether there was a repudiatory breach for late payment.† The Inhouse Lawyer, 2 June 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2015. Smithdale, James. â€Å"Januzaj v Valilas [2014] EWCA Civ 436.† Stone Chambers, June 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2015. Steward, Geoff and Dixon, Emma. â€Å"In the Jaws of a dilemma.† Macfarlanes LLP, 19 Jun. 2014. Web 28 Feb. 2015. Woods Daniel and Rowan Gregg. â€Å"Court of Appeal finds deliberate non-payment did not justify termination.† Habert Smith Freehills Dispute Resolution, 23 Jun. 2014. Web 28 Feb 2015.